Candidly, I do not see the necessity at this time for "Shared Sacrifice"

It has been reported frequently that 93 percent of the proceeds in this recovery from this near-depression has been reaped by the wealthy. During the recession's continuation, the middle class and the impoverished have continued to suffer. Many have lost their jobs, lost their health care and their homes. Poverty has increased.

The middle class and the indigent have already taken their turn at sacrificing. Now it is time for the wealthy to step up to the plate and take their turn. This also includes corporations that pay no taxes, as well as corporations that pay no taxes and additionally receive subsidies from the U.S. Government.

To date since the inception of this Bush-caused recession there has been no shared sacrifice. So why it so important to start that now? Let those who have already sacrificed be protected from further financial harm and demand that those who have benefited step up to the plate and take their rightful turn.

79. OTOH it is time for the rich to share their share of the sacrifice. Eisenhower tax rates

82. Great Post Sam!

I agree 100%. Thanks for your post!

Why should there be "shared sacrifice" now when the wealthy haven't lost a thing yet (actually have gotten richer) while the middle-class and poorer Americans have already paid-in through lost jobs, lost homes, lost retirement plans, lost health insurance, lost family food (SNAP benefits decreased while cost of food goes up, up, up), etc. Corporations have been earning basically TAX FREE income while the rest of us are hounded for $1.00 by the I.R.S. and their CEOs, CFOs. COOs and Boards of Directors reap that windfall through huge bonuses.

85. You are certainly paying attention and thank you

for adding to this thread. It is the hypocrisy of that phrase that really grates on me whenever I hear it that was the incentive finally for me to post this thread. Shared sacrifice, my patootie. It is time for the corporations and very well to-do to ante up.

3. Exactly! To me the whole tone was set by Dubya to dump us into two unpaid wars (one by lying),

spend like an unaccountable fool - and ask nothing of the country - the rich and the war machines continued to profit as those in the middle and below fell behind and continue to do so.

There should be not a finger touching any support programs until those at the top pay their fair share - and I mean pay, not hide - and I mean corporations as well as the wealthy. Once that is all taken care of, then we shall see if anything more needs to be done.....

"Since World War II, dozens of U.S. companies have made a "killing" from military conflict. President Dwight David Eisenhower was the first to refer to these companies as the "military industrial complex." The financial and political clout of these companies has risen and waned through the years, depending on who was in power and what the international climate was like.

Whatever one thinks of the morality or necessity of our war in Iraq, one thing is undeniable: certain well-placed companies are making millions of dollars off the war. Two companies with close ties to the Bush and Cheney families that are reaping huge profits are the Halliburton Company and the Carlyle Group.

The Carlyle Group is so proficient at raking in government contracts that it is often referred to as the "Ex-Presidents Club." Some of the West's biggest and most powerful political leaders are helping to guide Carlyle through the muddy waters of governmental red tape and are reaping huge benefits in the process."

And furthermore, just to add insult to injury, let's ask them to pay their fair share of taxes as well:

There are two methods by which Halliburton lowers its tax liability on foreign income: (1) By establishing a "controlled foreign corporation" and (2) By establishing a subsidiary inside a low tax, or no tax, country known as a "tax haven."

12. Agree

but how, are you calling for a law that confiscates wealth?

You know raise taxes sure but going back to marginal rates of 40 percent is not going to amount to a whole hill of beans. This country needs so much work starting with a mandatory living wage instead of some crappy minimum wage, and don't overburden me with health insurance costs because you force me to purchase health insurance and than allow the insurance companies to gouge me with ever increasing premiums or force me to pay more and more fines/taxes.

17. I read today that Honeywell, who's CEO was out there with

that jackass from Goldman, not only did not pay any taxes last year they received a REFUND of 34 million dollars on over a billion in sales. And that is just one company.

I have to disagree with you. I think making corporations pay their share of taxes would go a long way to fixing what ails this country and at the very least it would keep us from having to raid Medicare and S.S.

24. You are exactly correct and here is another point

I keep asking myself why these politicians have the gall to ask me to forfeit shares of my earned Medicare and Medicaid benefits to help pay for a deficit, a good portion of which was incurred as a result of Bush's illegal, immoral preemptive war on Iraq. I opposed this concept of preemptive war from the minute I heard the term and I spoke out against that war incessantly. I did not believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (with the possible exception of some germ war fare the Reagan administration gave Saddam in the 80s). So now here we are years later from the start of that war holding a huge deficit thanks to George W. Bush* and I am suppose to surrender benefits I have earned to help offset that deficit? I don't think so. I point to, as I did in another post above, asking Halliburton and The Carlyle Group to chip in and other similarly situated corporations to pay their fair share.

And your references to Honeywell, I believe the work Sensata was performing was for Honeywell, and we saw during the election how Bain was treating them. These corporations that are speaking out now, the Wall Street CEO's, Officers of large corporations, they will make us Sensata underdogs as well for the sake of their making an extra dollar.

Additionally, seeing these corporate officials step out and try to control where our public policies go starts reminding me of TPP references of late....

18. I have been thinking about this question and I think we all need to discuss possibilities

Just looking at the election, how did President Obama win? He won by courting the swing states. So who will be hurt most by this policy? Obviously, all middle class and indigent people will be hurt by the policies I am hearing suggested now. If the Democrats truly wanted to protect us, they would not be pushing for the so-called Grand Bargain before the next term. Many more Democrats will be joining the legislature at that time. So I am thinking why the push now?

I definitely support going off the cliff since it has been often reported there would be no serious repercussions from doing so until some time passed. In the meantime, the Bush Tax Cuts will have expired. We pick up the negotiations from that point. After all, elections are suppose to have consequences and it looks to me like the losers of the elections want all the same consequences as if they had won. That is not how it works!

My answer is that it will be easier to achieve a Grand Bargain without these incoming Dems, especially Warren, so they are pressing ugently now Democrats truly pushing for these weasel cuts on the earned benefits would not Warren's voice heard.

What I think we should do is to reach out to the citizens that have the poorest of people -- yes, The Red States! We need to excite people in states like Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi, Tennessee to come out in droves, insisting to their representative Senators and Congressmen and Congresswomen! to refuse to cut Medicare and Medicaid.

In other words, we should follow the President Obama model for winning!

This is simply meant for the start of a discussion on how to block cuts on these programs. But we seriously need to huddle and start figuring out a strategy.

28. Yep confiscate their ill gotten rigged wealth

If these bastards don't want to be good patriots and pay more taxes, than their wealth should be confiscated! Greedy mofos make me sick, all they do is take, take, take, but asked to contribute to the country that they have been so successful in, they raised holy hell.

42. No, I don't advocate for any laws that confiscates wealth

I advocate for passive resistance by all those who have done more than their fair share of sacrificing as a result of the Republicans ill-conceived handling of the reigns of power. Specifically, I am talking about Bush tanking this economy and his cohorts enabling him to do so. Yet they have prospered during all this and still look at the middle class and the indigent to pick up the pieces.

What kind of fools do they think we are? We won this election, and we voted on the issues. Yet here they are continuing the same battle cries of that election they lost. They just have different actors on the stage now, giving voice to those positions. Outrageously, some of those voices were the big donors to the Republican party during the electoral process. Yet here they are on the airways telling US what WE must do. Who do think they are? Who elected them to anything? Are they just going to take over?

We need to put pressure on our legislators to abandon this approach and seek a fairer manner in which to offset the debt. Each one of us needs to think about how we do this but in any event, we cannot be silent and let the chips fall.

57. You can't exactly, but what you can do is to take several steps to stop the progression, and over

time, recapture the lost productivity.

A few steps that can, but will not, be taken are; institute a corporate lifespan at the federal level, pass confiscatory inheritance taxes on fortunes over a few million dollars, implement steep penalties and fees for exporting money, reduce the US tax code by 99% and abolish all differentiation in incomes.

67. "Confiscate wealth" is right up there with "shared sacrifice" or "job creators".

It is bullshit and being used to influence people. When people talk about "confiscating wealth", they are trying to scare people that we are moving toward communism. Asking the wealthy to pay more taxes is not in any way confiscating wealth.

They are twisting all these terms to frighten people who don't realize that there is no "shared sacrifice". They people who are easily frightened think that the wealthy will be asked to do all the sacrificing, when so far, all the burden has been on working and middle class.

72. +1

15. Even if they were forced to pay more taxes what "sacrifices" are they making?

Is not having a 3rd house a sacrifice? Is not being able to afford the fancy gold plated fixtures in your new bathroom a sacrifice?

The nerve of these guys is striking. The CEO of Goldman Sachs actually said "they need to learn to expect less" and "we should pay zero taxes, so we can create jobs".

"They should expect less and we should be given more." Dumb fuck has lost his mind. How in the fuck do you get to be CEO of a corporation with so few brain cells?

And why is no journalist asking them this question.. "What hardships will you face if your taxes were increased 5%?" Someone needs to make them admit that they are just a bunch of greedy assholes, that this has nothing to do with any "fiscal cliff" or the deficit. If they were serious about fixing the deficit they would be talking about paying a shitload of back taxes.

34. Well, that is another approach and I can understand the protesters' motivation

But I hope we can huddle and figure out another path that will knock the meme of the "Shared Sacrifice" off the political discussion table by responding in a civil but effective way. I have been thinking about this question, "What can WE do, and it is difficult to answer. However, perhaps I personally will contact Bernie Sanders' office and ask for suggestions as to appropriate ways to proceed. I did this once before when the chained COLA was being discussed, and he picked up that ball and ran with it. He continues to do so to this day. I know he was instrumental in getting the signatures of 29 Senators on that letter to President Obama about refusing to compromise on earned benefits. Perhaps he or someone on his staff could offer some useful advice about resisting these calls for "shared sacrifice" in lieu of effectuating a more appropriate response at the bargaining table.

And thank you for the compliment. I try to keep my threads here civil in case anyone wants to share them in other places!!

35. Well said!

25. Tax investment income the same as earned income...

I don't have a lot of faith in President Obama standing firm against GOP demands of tearing the social safety net to pieces. Thanked God for the new Dem Senators coming in, they will forced President Obama into greatness and disabuse him of the notion of some BS "grand bargain".

30. I see the need for the rich to share in the sacrifices and hardships the rest of us have been throug

For to long they prospered we sacrificed they get richer and we lose more income we are back in the era of the Vanderbilts and Carnegie and just like than the government is bought and paid for by them so I hope they get to feel the pain of the rest of us

43. And for

some reason, they call people like me Lefties? So people like Mr Plouffe is calling me a leftie? I look like most of the people that voted for Mr Obama. Who does Plouffe look like? People like me did not vote for Mr Plouffe. Mr Obama needs to listen to the people that voted for him and I wouldn't mind if Plouffe was looking for another job, like Mr Romney. Nobody will miss him but his Wall Street buddies. And I don't have any money to pay for his indiscretions. President Obama needs to listen to the Unions and representatives like Bernie Sanders. They represent more voters than Mr Plouffe.

50. I think he was sent out to float that trial balloon

and I am doing my best to help puncture it.

I was surprised at how quickly these spokespeople crawled out from beneath the woodwork to spring this. It was apparent these negotiations were going on during the election; equally apparent was the silence as to who would give up what.

33. Nicely put. K & R n/t

39. K&R

It was a set-up, plain and simple, i.e. the economic mess we're in. They thought there would be no way the American People would reelect PO, and they would get back in there and finally be able to sweep away Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Education and many other agencies that has served our country well. Yeah, it's their turn to sacrifice. They're the ones who got all the tax brakes and prospered while everyone else was suffering. And Main Street paid for Wall Street. The money went somewhere, now didn't it? It did NOT disappear into thin air. It definitely is their turn to sacrifice.

40. Universal "concessions" are overdue.

For going on forty years, American labor has been hearing the word concessions at every wage negotiation. The rationale was consistent, that the future of the employee's job rides on whether they can suffer through a cut in pay or benefits.

The workers were told that the belt tightening would go all the way to the top, but while worker's wages stagnated or lost ground through multi tier wage scales, the board of directors sucked up those savings like a nuclear powered Roomba and deposited them in offshore accounts and vacation homes.

It's time to square up and reintroduce the word "concessions" to the top earners if republicans insist the national debt needs an influx of revenue. Then, and only then, will the sacrifice truly be "shared".

44. You are so right, JohnnyRingo, I like the way you think

And all that you describe really heated up during Ronald Reagan's terms in office, with his trickle down economics, also known as Reaganomics. We have been taken advantage of -- or perhaps I should say robbed -- since the inception of that concept.

But that is over now. And we have to send that message to those asking for "Shared Sacrifice." I personally am so done sacrificing and I insist those who have benefited from suppressing the rightful pay to the middle class and the indigent cease and desist, step up to the plate, and pay your fair share.

95. But in 1969, an average worker could get a union job and raise a family.

I know because I did it. That's nearly impossible now, so though I'm sure that figure you heard was adjusted for inflation, it likely now factors a dual income for a family of four. Considering that, we've lost even more in teh last 40 years.

I can't help feeling working Americans have fallen for a corporate ruse on everything from concessions to retirement accounts.

98. I think you are correct

as far as the dual income for a family of four, but I am not so sure working Americans have fallen for too many ruses. I think they just see themselves as powerless to do anything about it. I find it very encouraging that during this specific period of time more people are stepping out and giving loud voice to their complaints. And they are doing it openly, and a lot of these people are not unionized. Perhaps the tide is going to change.

41. Let the sacrifice be proportional to the gains.

During the 50's and 60's, the top marginal income tax rate was 91%. That rate applied to earnings over $400,000- about $2,000,000 in today's dollars. Nobody was outraged and the economy was booming.

I think then people understood that, beyond a certain point, "earning" was a poor description of how one acquired additional income. As rewards increase disproportionately to hours worked, excess earnings become more transparently a function of "fortune" and a higher tax rate on income approaches equivalency to taxing lottery winnings. Of course, in this age, the very highest incomes are often the reward of thinly-disguised looting.

86. marginal rate vs effective rate

the objection to this that I always hear from a conservative friend is that the marginal rates were very high, but there were far more deductions available so the effective tax rate was not nearly that high. I've been looking for a chart that shows the average effective tax rate on the rich (or for everyone) from the 50's to today. Can seem to find a good one.

"Noblesse oblige" is generally used to imply that with wealth, power, and prestige come responsibilities. The phrase is sometimes used derisively, in the sense of condescending or hypocritical social responsibility. In American English especially, the term is sometimes applied more broadly to suggest a general obligation for the more fortunate to help the less fortunate.

In ethical discussion, it is sometimes used to summarize a moral economy wherein privilege must be balanced by duty towards those who lack such privilege or who cannot perform such duty. Finally, it has been used recently primarily to refer to public responsibilities of the rich, famous and powerful, notably to provide good examples of behaviour or to exceed minimal standards of decency. It has also been used to describe a person taking the blame for something in order to solve an issue or save someone else."

58. the sad part is

Noblesse oblige implies that you have to do something...noble. Even Aristos of old had to at least TRY to appear noble. Today'swall street creeps actually feel they they have no obligation to anyone. In a way, it is more honest, as all those lovely social graces were often nothing more than the curtain that had all the backstage dealing. Here, you will have executives that will blatantly do crude, gross,silly things, and then speak of that as some sort of Ayn Rand virtue.

61. Yeah, whenever there's sacrifice involved it has to be shared.

HILL OF MEANS
Nearly half of Congress worth more than $1M, study reveals
By Mara Gay Sunday
November 20, 2011

<snip>

Forget Wall Street. With riches like these, “Occupy Congress” may make more sense.

That’s because 250 members of Congress — or 47 percent — have a net worth of more than $1 million, according to a new study by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

The study, which analyzed data from legislators’ financial disclosure forms, found the average senator had a net worth of about $2.63 million last year. That’s up 11 percent from $2.38 million in 2009 and 16 percent from $2.27 million in 2008.

So our senators net worth increased 16% since 2008. What about your net worth? Has it gone up 16%?

This is what they need to do, but won't:

>> Remove the cap from SS.

>> Tax investment income like labor.

>> Tax the corporations.

>> Rein in the military industrial complex - let's see that fucker make some sacrifice.

>> Pay Americans a living wage. If minimum wage had kept up with CEO pay since the early 90s it would now be over $23 an hour! They want the tax base to grow? Pay us higher wages & we'll pay more in taxes, not only with payroll taxes, but also with sales taxes!

Deficit problem solved.

Trust me, our rich senators & representatives have absolutely no intention of sharing the sacrifice or asking any of their rich contributors to share either. It's an empty phrase to make the lower classes think that the rich are giving something up, too.

I'm disgusted beyond belief by Plouffe said.

The senior White House adviser repeated Obama's opposition to extending the Bush tax cuts on those earning more than $250,000 a year, but expressed openness to a tax reform deal that could potentially lower what the wealthy pay.

"What we also want to do is engage in a process of tax reform that would ultimately produce lower rates, even potentially for the wealthiest," he said, referring to benefits from corporate tax reform.

Is he talking out both sides of his mouth here or what? We oppose extending the Bush tax cuts but we want a deal that could lower what the wealthy pay.

To all the folks who claimed Prez O was going to make a turn to the left if we would just vote him in for a second term, this is sounding like the same old bullshit to me.

66. I truly appreciate this thoughtful post

Thank you.

What you describe in part reminds me of what Republicans have historically done when campaigning. They reel in the wealthiest of people by dangling huge tax cuts in front of them. Once the politician is in office, he or she does effectuate the tax cut. But what they save the wealthy taxpayer in one pocket via their IRS filings is more than offset by other maneuvers which takes money out of their other pocket. This appears to me what some Dems are trying to do with this Grand Bargain. So how many of my pockets do I have to keep a watch on?

I was steamed at Plouffe's remarks as well. He was the messenger sent out to float the trial balloon. Now the administration studies the reaction. But when push comes to shove, the preferences of the middle and lower income citizens will not matter. I do not think Social Security will be touched at this time, I do believe Medicare will be adjusted -- in what manner is anyone's guess -- but I think Medicaid will be devastated. I also think the Republicans might make another stab at privatizing health care for veterans. I do think the mortgage interest deduction is at risk, but probably only those over a certain income bracket. Another proposition not often discovered is eliminating the ability to deduct one's state and local taxes from their Federal taxes. Now that would be a big hurt.

This is the moment where everyone might decide just how to deal with this situation.

89. If you ever get through to him can you relay this message for me

I was opposed to the Iraq war from the moment it was proposed. I spoke out against it during the invasion. I watched our troops cross that desert and cried, knowing the innocent Iraqi citizens who would die in this war was because of a campaign for which all Americans would be held responsible, including me.

A large part of the 10.5 Trillion Dollar Deficit George W. Bush* accumulated during his eight years in office (and kept off-budget with Enron-type accounting techniques) was due to that war. Now here we are a decade later, and that debt has escalated as part of the Bush legacy.

Do not ask me to sacrifice my earned benefits to pay for that war. Talk to the people who most profited from it and who today pay little to zero corporate income taxes. That would be Halliburton and The Carlyle Group. Dick Cheney received deferred compensation from Halliburton during his terms in office as Vice President. George H.W. Bush is a principle in The Carlyle Group. Ask them to ante up from their profits from this illegal, immoral war.

88. 'I like the cut of your jib, sailor...'

I especially appreciate how you've taken the time to nurture this thread via considerate responses to the upthread posters. I 'sacrifice' every day for the sake of my family, neighbors, friends, co-workers... but i also accept that i don't and never will have any money to 'spread around'. I put my back and mind into helping others quite often... that's just a part of how i have to live my life in order to be content with myself. Is that selfish? Do Rich people have these same compulsions? My experience says no (having grown up on Long Island), but can we blame them given how our culture breeds the concept of Wealth and Power as the Ultimate goal? Why is not the highest Ideal, Service to Humanity? (Normally i don't capitalize so much, but i feel each instance is appropriate and indicative of a 'generalization', however harsh that may be)

94. You are so kind to say that

It does take a lot of work to post and host a thread. But I find it totally worth it when people take a moment out and actually respond not just in recommendations but in words as well. I love reading other people's feelings on issues and I think it is healthy to speak out.

I too have made a lot of sacrifices and cannot help others as I would like. But I have resorted to trying to do good deeds for those who cannot do for themselves. It makes me feel good to make some kind of contribution and that is what I have been doing of late.

Capitalization is always appropriate in the written word for emphasis. Don't ever let anyone tell you differently!

And by the way, from one simple human being to another, it has never been a goal in my life to be extremely wealthy. But it has always been a goal to try and make a difference in someone's life. In that latter regard, I am extremely well off and happy!

97. Works for me

but somehow I think we won't see that anytime soon. I could settle for those corporations paying little to zero income taxes being forced to ante up, the subsidies for large, prosperous entities like Exxon being taken away, and the very wealthy paying a higher tax.